Obedience to God or to men by Gary Rose

Brother Ed Healy posted this on Facebook recently and I thank him for doing it!!! This sign probably will probably seem familiar to some of you and that's a good thing, because it has its basis in the Word of God.

Specifically, the book of Acts....

Acts, Chapter 5 (WEB)

¹⁷  But the high priest rose up, and all those who were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy,  ¹⁸ and laid hands on the apostles, and put them in public custody.  ¹⁹ But an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors by night, and brought them out, and said,  ²⁰ “Go stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.” 

  ²¹  When they heard this, they entered into the temple about daybreak, and taught. But the high priest came, and those who were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought.  ²² But the officers who came didn’t find them in the prison. They returned and reported,  ²³ “We found the prison shut and locked, and the guards standing before the doors, but when we opened them, we found no one inside!” 

  ²⁴  Now when the high priest, the captain of the temple, and the chief priests heard these words, they were very perplexed about them and what might become of this.  ²⁵ One came and told them, “Behold, the men whom you put in prison are in the temple, standing and teaching the people.”  ²⁶ Then the captain went with the officers, and brought them without violence, for they were afraid that the people might stone them. 

  ²⁷  When they had brought them, they set them before the council. The high priest questioned them,  ²⁸ saying, “Didn’t we strictly command you not to teach in this name? Behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood on us.” 

  ²⁹  But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.  ³⁰ The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed, hanging him on a tree.  ³¹ God exalted him with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.  ³² We are His witnesses of these things; and so also is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”(emp. added GDR)

Our society is increasingly become anti-Christian. As a result, it is only a matter of time before all Christians are faced with a decision: Shall I obey the Word of God or the rules of ungodly men?  

I have made up my mind to obey God and I pray that the Almighty will give me the courage to do what is right, regardless of the consequences!!!

I pray that all my fellow Christians will make God their first priority and do the same.

Bible Reading May 16 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading  

May 16

The World English Bible

May 16

Joshua 13, 14

Jos 13:1 Now Joshua was old and well advanced in years. Yahweh said to him, "You are old and advanced in years, and there remains yet very much land to be possessed.

Jos 13:2 This is the land that still remains: all the regions of the Philistines, and all the Geshurites;

Jos 13:3 from the Shihor, which is before Egypt, even to the border of Ekron northward, which is counted as Canaanite; the five lords of the Philistines; the Gazites, and the Ashdodites, the Ashkelonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites; also the Avvim,

Jos 13:4 on the south; all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that belongs to the Sidonians, to Aphek, to the border of the Amorites;

Jos 13:5 and the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrise, from Baal Gad under Mount Hermon to the entrance of Hamath;

Jos 13:6 all the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon to Misrephoth Maim, even all the Sidonians; them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only allocate it to Israel for an inheritance, as I have commanded you.

Jos 13:7 Now therefore divide this land for an inheritance to the nine tribes and the half-tribe of Manasseh."

Jos 13:8 With him the Reubenites and the Gadites received their inheritance, which Moses gave them, beyond the Jordan eastward, even as Moses the servant of Yahweh gave them:

Jos 13:9 from Aroer, that is on the edge of the valley of the Arnon, and the city that is in the middle of the valley, and all the plain of Medeba to Dibon;

Jos 13:10 and all the cities of Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, to the border of the children of Ammon;

Jos 13:11 and Gilead, and the border of the Geshurites and Maacathites, and all Mount Hermon, and all Bashan to Salecah;

Jos 13:12 all the kingdom of Og in Bashan, who reigned in Ashtaroth and in Edrei (the same was left of the remnant of the Rephaim); for Moses attacked these, and drove them out.

Jos 13:13 Nevertheless the children of Israel didn't drive out the Geshurites, nor the Maacathites: but Geshur and Maacath dwell in the midst of Israel to this day.

Jos 13:14 Only he gave no inheritance to the tribe of Levi. The offerings of Yahweh, the God of Israel, made by fire are his inheritance, as he spoke to him.

Jos 13:15 Moses gave to the tribe of the children of Reuben according to their families.

Jos 13:16 Their border was from Aroer, that is on the edge of the valley of the Arnon, and the city that is in the middle of the valley, and all the plain by Medeba;

Jos 13:17 Heshbon, and all its cities that are in the plain; Dibon, Bamoth Baal, Beth Baal Meon,

Jos 13:18 Jahaz, Kedemoth, Mephaath,

Jos 13:19 Kiriathaim, Sibmah, Zereth Shahar in the mount of the valley,

Jos 13:20 Beth Peor, the slopes of Pisgah, Beth Jeshimoth,

Jos 13:21 all the cities of the plain, and all the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, whom Moses struck with the chiefs of Midian, Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the princes of Sihon, who lived in the land.

Jos 13:22 The children of Israel alse killed Balaam also the son of Beor, the soothsayer, with the sword, among the rest of their slain.

Jos 13:23 The border of the children of Reuben was the bank of the Jordan. This was the inheritance of the children of Reuben according to their families, the cities and its villages.

Jos 13:24 Moses gave to the tribe of Gad, to the children of Gad, according to their families.

Jos 13:25 Their border was Jazer, and all the cities of Gilead, and half the land of the children of Ammon, to Aroer that is before Rabbah;

Jos 13:26 and from Heshbon to Ramath Mizpeh, and Betonim; and from Mahanaim to the border of Debir;

Jos 13:27 and in the valley, Beth Haram, Beth Nimrah, Succoth, and Zaphon, the rest of the kingdom of Sihon king of Heshbon, the Jordan's bank, to the uttermost part of the sea of Chinnereth beyond the Jordan eastward.

Jos 13:28 This is the inheritance of the children of Gad according to their families, the cities and its villages.

Jos 13:29 Moses gave an inheritance to the half-tribe of Manasseh. It was for the half-tribe of the children of Manasseh according to their families.

Jos 13:30 Their border was from Mahanaim, all Bashan, all the kingdom of Og king of Bashan, and all the towns of Jair, which are in Bashan, sixty cities.

Jos 13:31 Half Gilead, Ashtaroth, and Edrei, the cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan, were for the children of Machir the son of Manasseh, even for the half of the children of Machir according to their families.

Jos 13:32 These are the inheritances which Moses distributed in the plains of Moab, beyond the Jordan at Jericho, eastward.

Jos 13:33 But to the tribe of Levi Moses gave no inheritance. Yahweh, the God of Israel, is their inheritance, as he spoke to them.

Jos 14:1 These are the inheritances which the children of Israel took in the land of Canaan, which Eleazar the priest, Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers' houses of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed to them,

Jos 14:2 by the lot of their inheritance, as Yahweh commanded by Moses, for the nine tribes, and for the half-tribe.

Jos 14:3 For Moses had given the inheritance of the two tribes and the half-tribe beyond the Jordan; but to the Levites he gave no inheritance among them.

Jos 14:4 For the children of Joseph were two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim: and they gave no portion to the Levites in the land, except cities to dwell in, with their suburbs for their livestock and for their property.

Jos 14:5 The children of Israel did as Yahweh commanded Moses, and they divided the land.

Jos 14:6 Then the children of Judah drew near to Joshua in Gilgal. Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite said to him, "You know the thing that Yahweh spoke to Moses the man of God concerning me and concerning you in Kadesh Barnea.

Jos 14:7 I was forty years old when Moses the servant of Yahweh sent me from Kadesh Barnea to spy out the land. I brought him word again as it was in my heart.

Jos 14:8 Nevertheless, my brothers who went up with me made the heart of the people melt; but I wholly followed Yahweh my God.

Jos 14:9 Moses swore on that day, saying, 'Surely the land where you walked shall be an inheritance to you and to your children forever, because you have wholly followed Yahweh my God.'

Jos 14:10 Now, behold, Yahweh has kept me alive, as he spoke, these forty-five years, from the time that Yahweh spoke this word to Moses, while Israel walked in the wilderness. Now, behold, I am eighty-five years old, today.

Jos 14:11 As yet I am as strong today as I was in the day that Moses sent me: as my strength was then, even so is my strength now for war, to go out and to come in.

Jos 14:12 Now therefore give me this hill country, of which Yahweh spoke in that day; for you heard in that day how the Anakim were there, and great and fortified cities. It may be that Yahweh will be with me, and I shall drive them out, as Yahweh spoke."

Jos 14:13 Joshua blessed him; and he gave Hebron to Caleb the son of Jephunneh for an inheritance.

Jos 14:14 Therefore Hebron became the inheritance of Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite to this day; because he wholly followed Yahweh, the God of Israel.

Jos 14:15 Now the name of Hebron before was Kiriath Arba, after the greatest man among the Anakim. The land had rest from war.

 May 16, 17

John 1

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made.

Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

Joh 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness hasn't overcome it.

Joh 1:6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John.

Joh 1:7 The same came as a witness, that he might testify about the light, that all might believe through him.

Joh 1:8 He was not the light, but was sent that he might testify about the light.

Joh 1:9 The true light that enlightens everyone was coming into the world.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world didn't recognize him.

Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and those who were his own didn't receive him.

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God's children, to those who believe in his name:

Joh 1:13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Joh 1:14 The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Joh 1:15 John testified about him. He cried out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me, for he was before me.' "

Joh 1:16 From his fullness we all received grace upon grace.

Joh 1:17 For the law was given through Moses. Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.

Joh 1:19 This is John's testimony, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"

Joh 1:20 He confessed, and didn't deny, but he confessed, "I am not the Christ."

Joh 1:21 They asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the prophet?" He answered, "No."

Joh 1:22 They said therefore to him, "Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?"

Joh 1:23 He said, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way of the Lord,' as Isaiah the prophet said."

Joh 1:24 The ones who had been sent were from the Pharisees.

Joh 1:25 They asked him, "Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?"

Joh 1:26 John answered them, "I baptize in water, but among you stands one whom you don't know.

Joh 1:27 He is the one who comes after me, who is preferred before me, whose sandal strap I'm not worthy to loosen."

Joh 1:28 These things were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

Joh 1:29 The next day, he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Joh 1:30 This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who is preferred before me, for he was before me.'

Joh 1:31 I didn't know him, but for this reason I came baptizing in water: that he would be revealed to Israel."

Joh 1:32 John testified, saying, "I have seen the Spirit descending like a dove out of heaven, and it remained on him.

Joh 1:33 I didn't recognize him, but he who sent me to baptize in water, he said to me, 'On whomever you will see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.'

Joh 1:34 I have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God."

Joh 1:35 Again, the next day, John was standing with two of his disciples,

Joh 1:36 and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!"

Joh 1:37 The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.

Joh 1:38 Jesus turned, and saw them following, and said to them, "What are you looking for?" They said to him, "Rabbi" (which is to say, being interpreted, Teacher), "where are you staying?"

Joh 1:39 He said to them, "Come, and see." They came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. It was about the tenth hour.

Joh 1:40 One of the two who heard John, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.

Joh 1:41 He first found his own brother, Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah!" (which is, being interpreted, Christ).

Joh 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is by interpretation, Peter).

Joh 1:43 On the next day, he was determined to go out into Galilee, and he found Philip. Jesus said to him, "Follow me."

Joh 1:44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter.

Joh 1:45 Philip found Nathanael, and said to him, "We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote: Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

Joh 1:46 Nathanael said to him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see."

Joh 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said about him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!"

Joh 1:48 Nathanael said to him, "How do you know me?" Jesus answered him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you."

Joh 1:49 Nathanael answered him, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are King of Israel!"

Joh 1:50 Jesus answered him, "Because I told you, 'I saw you underneath the fig tree,' do you believe? You will see greater things than these!"

Joh 1:51 He said to him, "Most certainly, I tell you, hereafter you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."

Handling Our Anger by Richard Mansel

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Mansel/Richard/Dale/1964/anger.html

Handling Our Anger

Imagine that you have spent all day cleaning your house for an important dinner party and you have everything spotless just minutes before your guests are to arrive. Then you hear in the kitchen the sound of tiny feet and see that your three-year-old has tracked mud all over the kitchen tile. You explode. What happens next is anger. It can become, as someone has written, a wild dog that can be tamed for a while but then we can unleash it and no one is immune to its fury.
Few things can tear apart the fabric of a family like anger. It has led many to divorce court, permanent alienation and even incarceration. How many relatives have not spoken to one another for years because of anger? The pain is pervasive throughout our society. We must deal with anger or its ravages will consume us.
There are four ways that we can deal with anger.
First, we can repress it. Denial, however, is a dangerous practice because we do not always know when the kettle will blow. A basketball held under water will suddenly pop to the surface and splash water on everyone around. Repressed anger can have similar results.
Second, we can ignore our anger and pretend it does not exist. Unresolved anger, however, just sits in our hearts and eats away at us and often gives us a cruel, bitter nature.
Third, we can unleash it on whoever happens to be there at the time. Graveyards are filled with the victims of this approach.
Finally, we can learn the message of Scripture on how to resolve anger. "A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards" (Proverbs 29:11). "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath ... Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you" (Ephesians 4:26,31,32).
This is the way to deal with anger. Is not life too short to lose a loved one because of anger? We must control anger or it will control us.
Richard Mansel



Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Musing on atheistic ethics by Jim McGuiggan

Musing on atheistic ethics

Some unbelievers insist that our "moral" sense probably all began when genes that favoured community were exchanged in lower animals at some stage in our evolution (rather than genes that were more immediately linked to survival at a sheerly physical level—the "pack" sense can certainly be considered as survival friendly). From that point on "communities" and "families" developed and the "community" genetic pool was enriched as well as enlarged. If people like bio-ethicist, E. O Wilson, are right and this is how mutual care and the sense that we "ought" to treat one another well came to humans, at least we have a clear picture. It's just another one of those products of purposeless and mindless evolution. There's nothing "transcendent" about it—we're genetically programmed to be loyal and caring. Of course, Wilson insists that the other side of the coin is also true—we're genetically programmed to hate and oppose each other. If you're not of my community or tribe or pack there is that divide between us and if it comes to a choice the "outsiders" go down. [Some that believe that, think we should nevertheless control our "selfish genes". But why "should" we? Where does "should" enter?]

However the fine details are worked out and the balance between "nature" and "nurture" (genes and environment) is settled, when we're done "morality" and "immorality" is physically based and came about by chance. We use words like "good" and "bad" and "evil" and "immoral" and "loyal" and "treacherous" and "greedy" and "benevolent" out of habit and convenience. We saw these as "virtues" in an age when we thought that God had something to do with them but now we know better. There's nothing "good" about goodness or "bad" about badness. These feelings and habits simply are what they are—the end product of evolution from inorganic compounds to "the bags of chemicals" that we are.

For our own survival we encouraged the traits that made for community and penalised the traits that threatened our community existence. But in favouring the "good" traits we weren't being good—it was another evolutionary urge fuelled by stimuli including environment, chance, pleasure, physical necessity and so forth.

As we evolved upward some branches of the evolutionary tree became more "intelligent" and so more powerful and shrewd but the "intelligence" grew out of the same soil as everything else; inner structural drives meeting the environment all of which rose up out of reality that is totally, utterly and altogether "material". The human branch of evolution outstripped the rest of the bio-world and took control of it. As a matter of simple survival it structured "societies" and adopted societal rules that outlawed anarchy and as a matter of course those societies coerced the citizens into acceptable behavioural patterns.

How the thought of God came into the picture is another story but with his entrance and the entrance of religion these traits that were created by chance chemical/genetic/environmental drives were given a super-natural character. Since there was no God and since everything from stem cells to black holes to killer whales, human DNA and supernovas—since these are all the product of forces and matter operated on by chance and the "laws" of physics "morality" and "goodness", "immorality" and "badness" have no real referent other than what humans choose them to mean. (Of course, "choice" is also a chemical based thing so there's really no choice.) But depending on who has the power to coerce, these words will change their meaning. In addition, the weaker element can only be coerced into submitting to the societal laws but as soon as they have the power everything may change and no one can rationally call their choices "bad" or "immoral" since these words have only a relative meaning. Different strokes for different folks.

Of course, if the "ought" realm is nothing more than divergent genes and should therefore be viewed as nothing but chance development in light of existent physical "laws" that came into existence at the Big Bang then ethics/morality mean nothing but what is. Your ethical stance (providing you aren't utterly amoral) is interesting, it has a physical basis and you may be able to coerce me into behaving in line with your ethical views but there can be no rational talk of moral high ground. Should I choose not to accept your ethical standards you might well coerce me into conformity but you mustn't pretend that you are "morally right" and I am "immoral". You mustn't pretend that there is moral right and wrong. You can only claim that how I choose to behave is different from how you do but both our "choices" are the product of sheerly genetic/chemical/environmental pressures.

If a Nazi has formerly behaved with "propriety" but now chooses to torture and murder he has simply thrown off one form of behaviour and adopted another. Murder and torture, then, is not a "moral" or "ethical" issue—these are just words that describe empirical activities that we don't like or are afraid of or recoil from. Call what Nazis did anything you like but you can't give it a transcendent nature, you can't feel morally superior. Mengele, Pol Pot, Stalin and the like did what they wanted for whatever reasons but for an atheist to condemn such behaviour as "immoral" or "evil" or "bad" is one bag of chemicals reacting to other bags of chemicals.

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Believing What Jesus Believed by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1223&b=Jonah

Believing What Jesus Believed

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

It has become increasingly popular to accept certain parts of the Bible and to reject other parts. Such amazing events as the miracle of Creation, Jonah’s being swallowed by a sea creature, and the Flood of Noah often are brushed aside as mere myth, while more “credible” things such as the teachings of Jesus are accepted as fact. Although this line of reasoning might have some initial appeal to our “enlightened” society that rejects biblical miracles off hand, it contains a major flaw. When the teachings of Jesus are analyzed, it can be shown that Jesus Himself believed and taught the Old Testament stories that some label as myth.

For instance, the story of Jonah has come under attack due to its extraordinary details. According to the Old Testament Scriptures, God’s prophet Jonah disobeyed the Lord and was swallowed by a great sea creature. For three days, he dwelt as a damp denizen of that creature’s belly, until finally he was vomited onto the land and given another chance to obey God. To certain scholars, the story of Jonah finds a place in the Scriptures, not as a factual narrative of a specific historical account, but as a myth or allegory. What did Jesus believe about the story of Jonah? His sentiments in this regard were emphatically stated.

Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given it but the sign of Jonah the prophet: for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here (Matthew 12:38-41).

Quite clearly, Jesus accepted the story of Jonah as an accurate description of a real, historical event. He included not only the fact that Jonah spent three days in the belly of the fish, but also affirmed that the city of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah. If the story of Jonah were simply an allegory or myth, Jesus’ entire point about being in the belly of the Earth for as long as Jonah was in the belly of the fish would be weakened to the point of ridiculousness. For, if Jonah wasn’t ever really in the belly of the fish, then what would that say about the Son of Man actually being in the belly of the Earth?

Another story endorsed by Christ is the formation of man and woman at the beginning of Creation. Some scholars, in an attempt to find a compromise between the Bible and organic evolution, have postulated that the Creation account of Genesis need not be taken literally, and that room can be found in Genesis to accommodate the idea that humans evolved gradually in Earth’s recent past. What did Jesus say about this idea?

During His earthly sojourn, Christ spoke explicitly regarding Creation. In Mark 10:6, for example, He declared: “But from the beginning of the creation, male and female made he them.” Note these three paramount truths: (1) The first couple was “made”; they were not biological accidents. Interestingly, the verb “made” in the Greek is in the aorist tense, implying point action, rather than progressive development (which would be characteristic of evolutionary activity). W.E. Vine made this very observation with reference to the composition of the human body in his comments on 1 Corinthians 12:18 (1951, p. 173). (2) The original pair was fashioned “male and female”; they were not initially an asexual “blob” that eventually experienced sexual diversion. (3) Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning of the creation.” The Greek word for “beginning” is arché, and is used of “absolute, denoting the beginning of the world and of its history, the beginning of creation.” The Greek word for “creation” is ktiseos, and denotes the “sum-total of what God has created” (Cremer, 1962, pp. 113,114,381, emp. in orig.). Christ certainly did not subscribe to the notion that the Earth is millions or billions of years older than humanity.

Accepting the testimony of Jesus Christ further demands that the global Flood of Noah be taken as a literal, historic event. The Lord Himself addressed the topic of the great Flood in Luke 17:26-30 (cf. Matthew 24:39) when He drew the following parallel:

And as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise even as it came to pass in the days of Lot; they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but in the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all: after the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed (emp. added).

The Lord depicted an impending doom that was to befall the Jews of His day who would not heed the Word of God. For the purpose of this article, however, note the context in which Jesus discussed the Flood destruction of Genesis 6-8. He placed the Flood alongside the destruction of Sodom, and He also placed it alongside the destruction of the ungodly at His Second Coming. John Whitcomb correctly noted that the word “all” must refer to the totality of people on the entire Earth in Noah’s day, and in Sodom during Lot’s time. Jesus’ argument would be weakened considerably if some of the people on the Earth, besides Noah’s family, escaped the Flood, or if certain Sodomites survived the fiery destruction sent from Heaven (1973, pp. 21-22). It is evident from the text that Jesus affirmed that the same number of ungodly sinners who escaped the Flood will be the same number of disobedient people who escape destruction at His Second Coming—none. From His remarks, one can clearly see that Jesus accepted the Genesis account of a global flood as a historical fact.

The sayings of Jesus contain numerous references to some of the Old Testament’s most extraordinary events. A person cannot consistently maintain a belief in Jesus and His teachings, while denying the details of the accounts that He endorsed as factual. The testimony of Jesus and the factual accuracy of the stories He commended stand together.

REFERENCES

Cremer, H. (1962), Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek (London: T & T Clark).

Vine, W.E. (1951), First Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Whitcomb, John C. (1973), The World That Perished (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Did Jesus Condone Law-breaking? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1276&b=Matthew

Did Jesus Condone Law-breaking?
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The Pharisees certainly did not think that the Son of God was beyond reproach. Following Jesus’ feeding of the four thousand, they came “testing” Him, asking Him to show them a sign from heaven (Matthew 16:1). Later in the gospel of Matthew (19:3ff.), the writer recorded how “the Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’ ” It was their aim on this occasion, as on numerous other occasions, to entangle Jesus in His teachings by asking Him a potentially entrapping question—one that, if answered in a way that the Pharisees had anticipated, might bring upon Jesus the wrath of Herod Antipas (cf. Matthew 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29) and/or some of His fellow Jews (e.g., the school of Hillel, or the school of Shammai). A third time the Pharisees sought to “entangle Him in His talk” (Matthew 22:15) as they asked, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” (22:17). The jealous and hypocritical Pharisees were so relentless in their efforts to destroy the Lord’s influence that on one occasion they even accused Jesus’ disciples of breaking the law as they “went through the grainfields on the Sabbath…were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat” (Matthew 12:1ff.). [NOTE: “Their knowledge of so trifling an incident shows how minutely they observed all his deeds” (Coffman, 1984, p. 165). The microscopic scrutiny under which Jesus lived, likely was even more relentless than what some “stars” experience today. In one sense, the Pharisees could be considered the “paparazzi” of Jesus’ day.] Allegedly, what the disciples were doing on this particular Sabbath was considered “work,” which the Law of Moses forbade (Matthew 12:2; cf. Exodus 20:9-10; 34:21).

Jesus responded to the criticism of the Pharisees by giving the truth of the matter, and at the same time revealing the Pharisees’ hypocrisy. As was somewhat customary for Jesus when being tested by His enemies (cf. Matthew 12:11-12; 15:3; 21:24-25; etc.), He responded to the Pharisees’ accusation with two questions. First, He asked: “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?” (12:3-4). Jesus reminded the Pharisees of an event in the life of David (recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1ff.), where he and others, while fleeing from king Saul, ate of the showbread, which divine law restricted to the priests (Leviticus 24:5-9). Some commentators have unjustifiably concluded that Jesus was implying innocence on the part of David (and that God’s laws are subservient to human needs—cf. Zerr, 1952, 5:41; Dummelow, 1937, p. 666), and thus He was defending His disciples “lawless” actions with the same reasoning. Actually, however, just the opposite is true. Jesus explicitly stated that what David did was wrong (“not lawful”—12:4), and that what His disciples did was right—they were “guiltless” (12:7). Furthermore, as J.W. McGarvey observed: “If Christians may violate law when its observance would involve hardship or suffering, then there is an end to suffering for the name of Christ, and an end even of self-denial” (1875, p. 104). The disciples were not permitted by Jesus to break the law on this occasion (or any other) just because it was convenient (cf. Matthew 5:17-19). The Pharisees simply were wrong in their accusations. The only “law” Jesus’ disciples broke was the Pharisaical interpretation of the law (which seems to have been more sacred to the Pharisees than the law itself). In response to such hyper-legalism, Burton Coffman forcefully stated:

In the Pharisees’ view, the disciples were guilty of threshing wheat! Such pedantry, nit-picking, and magnification of trifles would also have made them guilty of irrigating land, if they had chanced to knock off a few drops of dew while passing through the fields! The Pharisees were out to “get” Jesus; and any charge was better than none (1984, p. 165, emp. added).

Jesus used the instruction of 1 Samuel 21 to get the Pharisees to recognize their insincerity, and to justify His disciples. David, a man about whom the Jews ever boasted, blatantly violated God’s law by eating the showbread, and yet the Pharisees justified him. On the other hand, Jesus’ disciples merely plucked some grain on the Sabbath while walking through a field, an act that the law did not forbid, and yet the Pharisees condemned them. Had the Pharisees not approved of David’s conduct, they could have responded by saying, “You judge yourself. You’re all sinners.” Their reaction to Jesus’ question, however, was that of hypocrites who had been exposed—silence.

Jesus then asked a second question, saying, “Have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?” (Matthew 12:5). Here, Jesus wanted the Pharisees to acknowledge that even the law itself condoned some work on the Sabbath day. Although the Pharisees acted as if all work was banned on this day, it was actually the busiest day of the week for priests.

They baked and changed the showbread; they performed sabbatical sacrifices (Num. xxviii. 9), and two lambs were killed on the sabbath in addition to the daily sacrifice. This involved the killing, skinning, and cleaning of the animals, and the building of the fire to consume the sacrifice. They also trimmed the gold lamps, burned incense, and performed various other duties (McGarvey, n.d., pp. 211-212).

One of those “other duties” would have been to circumcise young baby boys when the child’s eighth day fell on a Sabbath. The purpose of Jesus citing these “profane” priestly works was to prove that the Sabbath prohibition was not unconditional. [NOTE: Jesus used the term “profane,” not because there was a real desecration of the temple by the priests as they worked, but “to express what was true according to the mistaken notions of the Pharisees as to manual works performed on the Sabbath” (Bullinger, 1898, p. 676).] The truth is, the Sabbath law “did not forbid work absolutely, but labor for worldly gain. Activity in the work of God was both allowed and commanded” (McGarvey, n.d., p. 212). Coffman thus concluded: “Just as the priests served the temple on the Sabbath day and were guiltless, his [Jesus’—EL] disciples might also serve Christ, the Greater Temple, without incurring guilt” (p. 167). Just as the priests who served God in the temple on the Sabbath were totally within the law, so likewise were Jesus’ disciples as they served the “Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8), Whose holiness was greater than that of the temple (12:6).

REFERENCES

Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).

Coffman, Burton (1984), Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Dummelow, J.R. (1937), One Volume Commentary (New York: MacMillan).

McGarvey, J.W. (n.d.), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).

McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight AR: Gospel Light).

Zerr, E.M. (1952), Bible Commentary (Raytown, MO: Reprint Publications).